So Google could, for example, switch from a tiny "this could be wrong!" byline to having the AI be less overconfident every freaking time regardless of whether it's spouting made up crap or actual facts.

The scale doesn't sound like a way out. If your company expects to get away with doing the wrong thing where smaller companies can't, then the solution isn't to continue getting away with it.

Because the military doesn't give soldiers rifles with guard rails. They give the soldiers intense, rigid training, and then try to enforce discipline and correct use socially.

If an LLM is going to be important in that way (this seems like a very contrived way,) then it's in the interest of the LLM's host to make sure it doesn't have guard rails that would get in the way _that_ way.

Open protocols are still there and still used, but we're sad because the smaller userbase is frustrating. Just like how people still publish human written content to personal blogs, but they're proportionally non-existent.

Why does Google think it's a good idea to make that the case even if you don't block their crawlers?

Those people would heavily incentivized to protect their ability to vote.

It's the same thing with selling general offensive security tools. You have to proactively make it clear that it's for testing and not criminal use. Otherwise, cops are going to assume you're complicit and make things shitty.

Unless healthcare businesses decide to improve patient care with AI instead of increasing patients per day, I think it's going to make things even worse.

That aside, corporations and groups don't make decisions. People do. We can understand and empathize with what led them to that decision (and sometimes we might be looking at the wrong person), but they're still responsible.

Littmann sells repair kits.

I wish drivers (and now leaders of a company) would have more empathy toward people on the road that can be squashed like a bug.

Like this:

> will start making people think more about counting exact hours they’re working. It’s partially why the “4 10s” concept is also a bad idea that permeates the defense contractors.

Maybe that's a good thing? [1]

I have no doubt that Meta is thinking like your four points and hiding behind "it's the corporation making the decisions, not a bunch of people at high levels", but... Ugh.

[1] Nitpick - I was speaking to a friend about a decade ago regarding their OT/IOT work in the defense industry, and they told me that they had to aggressively track every hour. The feds were punitive when it came to unreported overtime.

If the interview is for becoming a partner at a practice, it's a two way courtship that's more reminiscent of other businesses looking for a co-owner.

Doctors also tend to hear about each other. Even in decent sized metro areas, they can often know who to avoid.

(This process isn't perfect, but it's still way different than for software.)

Or to stop stretching metaphors.. The investors should be mad that the layoffs were even necessary.

Until the attacker has initial access.

Then the attacker needs to be right every single time.

Companies that market to the EU are going to need to find out real fast.

Unless I'm spending way more money, I'd expect any company to fire me as a client as fast as legally possible if I threatened them with a lawyer.

That hits your toxic waste goal real fast.